Afternoon summary
- John Bercow, the Commons speaker, has told David Davis to appear in front of the Brexit select committee within days or face the prospect of being held in contempt of parliament. See 2.47pm.
- Sir Nick Harvey, the former Lib Dem MP and former defence minister, has been appointed Lib Dem chief executive.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Scottish Brexit minister says government should publish full Brexit impact analysis
The Scottish government has urged David Davis to publish a more detailed Brexit impact analysis. The information sent to the Commons Brexit committee was also sent to the devolved administration, and the Scottish government’s Brexit minister, Mike Russell, has responded in an open letter to David Davis. Russell says that the Brexit impact analysis reports released so far do not actually contain any Brexit impact analysis.
Here is an extract from his letter.
The first minister [Nicola Sturgeon] and I have both been clear that the UK government’s analysis of the impact of Brexit on sectors or the economy as a whole should be made public. It is essential that people across the UK fully understand the consequences of decisions being taken about their future. It is disappointing that the UK government has persisted in keeping this information from being publicly available and have shared with us only on the basis that we do not release it into the public domain. I urge you to reconsider this approach, be up front with people and publish these reports immediately.
Aside from the matter of publication, it is clear is that these reports do not contain any actual impact analysis. They seem to be a collation of sectoral information, and as useful as that is it fails to address the key need; to understand what assessment the UK government has made of the likely impact of its approach of leaving the single market and customs union and what mitigating measures if any are being put in place to manage negative impacts. I am therefore requesting that you share the full breadth of the analysis that the UK government has undertaken with the devolved administrations as a matter of urgency.
Gove says farmers who resist change and adaptation will lose out after Brexit
Environment secretary Michael Gove has warned that farmers who are unwilling to change and adapt are set to lose out under any new post Brexit countryside deal.
Speaking at the Country Land and Business Association’s conference Gove said the government would reform the existing EU farm subsidy system to enhance the countryside and improve land use. But he said that those famers who refused to change would lose out. He said:
If you are the sort of person who has been concentrating on avoiding changing, avoiding adapting, avoiding thinking about increased productivity or indeed environmental enhancement, then you will be caught. But if you are someone who is thinking hard about all those things, there are significant opportunities ahead.
Gove’s intervention was welcomed by environment campaigners. Rebecca Newson from Greenpeace said the “broken farm subsidy system” should be a priority for government. She said:
For far too long millions in taxpayer-funded subsidies have been an extra entitlement for the wealthy families and businesses owning most of the land, instead of being used to reward farmers whose work promotes the common good. For these subsidies to be justifiable they should go to farmers who produce sustainable food, support thriving rural economies, reduce flood risk and protect our wildlife. Britain has a unique opportunity to rethink the whole concept of farm subsidy from scratch and should not waste it. We look forward to seeing the details of Gove’s plan.
Milburn says extremism will increase unless social divisions are addressed
At the news conference to mark the publication of the social mobility commission’s state of the nation report this morning (see 11.33am) Alan Milburn, the commission chair and former Labour health secretary, said that there would be rise in extremism unless the social divisions outlined in the report were tackled. He told journalists:
These are volatile and uncertain times.
Right now Britain seems to be in the grip of a self-reinforcing spiral of ever-growing division.
The growing sense that we have become an us and them society is deeply corrosive of our cohesion as a nation.
Our politics are becoming polarised just as our country is. We see that on this side of the Atlantic and we see it in the US.
It is easy to rail against what is happening but the analysis in this report explains why there is such a sense of political alienation and social resentment in so many parts of our country.
Whole tracts of our economy feel left behind, because they are.
Whole communities feel that the benefits of globalisation have passed them by, because they have.
Whole sections of society feel they are not getting a fair chance to succeed, because they are not.
And with it a heady brew of hopelessness mixed with anger.
Unless mainstream politics can answer the problem of economic, social and geographical division the answer will come, as we are already seeing in parts of Europe, from the extremism of either the hard left or the far right.
Miliburn also said that these grievances contributed to the Brexit vote. Stressing that he thought Brexit was a mistake, he said:
What this report shows is that the causes of Brexit are real, people are concerned for a reason, they do feel that they are being left behind, they do feel that they are being ignored, they are resentful of the outside, whatever form that takes. That is an issue that has to be grasped.
Commons officials have clarified how a contempt motion could come to the floor of the Commons. An MP who wants to make an allegation of contempt has to make an application in writing to the speaker. If the speaker choses to allow it, the decision is announced and the MP gets to table a motion for the Commons to consider the following day. Normally that motion would be to refer the matter to the privileges committee, but it could say something else.
Here is some Twitter comment on the Brexit impact papers row.
From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg
Davis is summoned back to give evidence to MPs on the mysterious Brexit papers - while all MPs will get the chance to look at the versions that have been passed over, so their findings more likely to leak - has govt managed to make what was already a messy situation even worse?
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) November 28, 2017
From Sky’s Faisal Islam
current Govt options:
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) November 28, 2017
1. Risk a contempt of Parliament motion
2. Deliver all the material unedited to Hilary Benn
3. Table and not lose another motion that defined the release of Papers as what it already has done
From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie
David Davis has basically being rumbled for claiming he'd written War & Peace but when asked to produced the manuscript has been forced to hand over the latest EL James
— Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror) November 28, 2017
Hillary Benn is one of the most reasonable people in Parliament. If David Davis cannot negotiate successfully with him does not bode well for dealing with the EU27
— Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror) November 28, 2017
From the FT’s David Allen Green
In essence:
— David Allen Green (@davidallengreen) November 28, 2017
1. Davis has to attend Brexit committee "very soon".
2. Bercow will then consider any new notices requesting a contempt motion.
3. Bercow rules disclosure motion is "binding".
4. Looks like government may attempt new, amended binding motion re papers.
1/2
5. So (a) unless government manage to get a new amended binding motion, and (b) if Brexit committee say disclosure so far insufficient, then real prospect of contempt motion.
— David Allen Green (@davidallengreen) November 28, 2017
6. Government is in a serious hole here.
7. Bercow is playing a blinder. An outstanding Speaker.
2/2
Brexit impact reports row - Summary and analysis of where we are now
MPs enjoy a good procedural row and they don’t get much more arcane and technical than the one about the Brexit impact reports, involving, as it does, a humble address, contempt of parliament and the rights of select committees. If you were following the UQ in the Commons, and the subsequent points of order, you may have found it all a bit dull. But in parliament arguments about procedure are often, ultimately, skirmishes about power and this one is about how much ministers have to disclose to MPs about Brexit policy.
And the key point is that David Davis is under pressure to reveal more - with John Bercow and a large number of MPs threatening him with parliamentary censure if he does not budge.
Here are the key points.
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been summoned to explain to the Brexit committee why he has not released all the information it wants as a matter of urgency. Hilary Benn, the committee chair, said David should appear before it “very speedily indeed”. John Bercow, the speaker, implied the meeting should take place as soon as possible. He told MPs:
I think that. when it is suggested that that meeting should be soon, it means soon - it does not mean weeks hence, it means very soon indeed.
Nothing, no commitment, no other diarised engagement is more important than respecting the House and in this case the committee of the House which has ownership of this matter and to which the papers were to be provided.
- Bercow hinted that he would allow MPs to debate a motion accusing Davis of contempt of parliament if Davis did not agree to release more information. “Contempt” is a parliamentary term covering action that involves defying the will of the Commons and MPs can pass motions criticising people for contempt, and even imposing a punishment on members who transgress, such as suspension. In practice the prospect of MPs voting to suspend Davis seems fanciful in the extreme, but any sort of debate on this matter would be highly embarrassing - particularly in the light of the government’s claim that Brexit is about restoring the sovereignty of parliament. Bercow did not say categorically that Davis was guilty of contempt. But Benn said that the information given to the select committee was “not in keeping” with the motion passed by the House saying the Brexit impact assessments should be given to the select committee. (See 12.49pm.) And when the SNP’s Pete Wishart asked if Bercow would respond to a letter saying Davis was in contempt, Bercow said Wishart needed to write a new letter in response to recent developments. He then went on:
As and when matters evolve, if a further representation alleging contempt is made to me I will consider it very promptly and come back to the House, I hope the House knows me well enough to know that I will do my duty.
- Robin Walker, the Brexit minister, said the government would consider getting MPs to vote for a new motion clarifying what Brexit impact report information should be published. Several MPs said that problem was caused by the fact the government did not oppose the original motion. (See 12.49pm.) Asked if the government would consider tabling a motion amending the original humble address, Walker said ministers would consider this. But it is not clear whether this would undo the effect of the original vote. Bercow implied that it would not. In response to a point of order, he said:
There is a very recent motion passed by this House .... As speaker, I ruled that [the motion] was binding or effective. And that irrespective of other motions, remains the fact.
It was also not obvious what any new motion would have to say to be passed by the Commons because some Tories seem to accept the argument that the select committee should have the final say over what gets published. The government does not accept this.
- Several Tories, including Brexiters, criticised the government for not complying with the terms of the original vote. The strongest language probably came from Philip Hollobone, a hardline leave supporter, who said it was a “mistake” for the government not to amend the original motion and that the government was now “skating on very thin parliamentary ice”.
- Walker said that all MPs would be allowed to read the Brexit documents that have been passed to the select committee this week. (See 1.01pm.)
- Benn said he objected to the suggestion that he or his committee could not be trusted to handle confidential information.
- Benn and Davis are at odds over who should have the final say over what Brexit impact report information gets published. In his letter to Davis, Benn said that, although was willing to discuss with Davis what did or did not get published, the committee should have the final say. In his letter, Davis said the government would not release some information to the committee without an assurance it would not be published.
- Some Tories defended Davis’s decision not to hand all the Brexit impact assessment information to the selection committee. John Whittingdale, a pro-Brexit member of the committee, and former select committee chair, said:
I understand these documents have been sent to two select committees of parliament and to the devolved administrations, and as a former chairman of the select committee I can say that leaks are not without precedent and I would not want the government to make available any information that if it became public it could undermine our negotiating position.
- Walker claimed that in some respects the government had given the committee more information than originally envisaged. He said:
Of course there are various assessments and various documents held by government which have been worked on over time addressing the individual sectors. What we have sought to do, and what we have provided the select committee with, is actually a great deal more information than existed at the time of the secretary of state’s evidence to the select committee. And I think that will be valuable to them in their scrutiny.
Updated
Ken Clarke, the pro-European, says this issue arose because the government decided not to vote against Labour motions. As a result the Commons is passing motions criticising the government. The Commons is being reduced to a debating chamber, he says. Parliamentary accountability has been reduced. What can be done to get back to the situation where the government is accountable to the Commons?
Bercow says what the government has done has not been disorderly. But if Clarke is saying having the government abstain on Labour motions is not “helpful”, Bercow says he would agree.
That’s it. The UQ and points of order are now all over.
I’ll post a summary of where we are, and what it all means, very soon.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory Brexiter, asks if the passing of a new motion would negate any charge of contempt against David Davis.
Bercow says that is a hypothetical question.
Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks if, in the event of the government tabling a new motion on this, it can be debated quickly, after the budget debate. Bercow says that could happen.
The UQ is over.
Sir Keir Starmer is raising a point of order.
He says MPs expected the papers to be handed over unedited.
He asks Bercow for his guidance as to whether or not the government has complied with the motion. If it hasn’t, is that a contempt of the House? And what should happen next?
The SNP’s Pete Wishart says he has already written to Bercow suggesting there has been a contempt of parliament. He asks Bercow to respond. ‘This is contempt and the government must be held accountable for its failure to comply,” he says.
Marcus Fysh, a Conservative, says on page 201 of Erskine May it says ministers do not have to disclose all information when required to.
John Bercow dismisses Fysh’s comment, saying he is familiar with the precedent.
Addressing Wishart, he says it would be better if Wishart were to write to him again in the light of the new developments. If he gets one, he will consider it, he says.
Beyond that, he says it is well known to members, and Starmer, that MPs wishing to allege a contempt not as a point of order, and not in the media, but in writing to the speaker.
The speaker then decides if the matter should have precedence, he says.
He says he is “more than happy to confirm that my doors are always open for such written notices”, he says.
He says MPs “all heard what the chair of the Brexit select committee had to say”.
He says the committee asked for “an urgent audience” with David Davis.
He says Walker said Davis would meet the committee soon. He says the meeting should be soon, and that does not mean “weeks hence”. It means “very soon indeed”. No other commitment is more important than meeting the House, he says.
That is where the matter rests, he says.
He says if a further allegation of contempt is made to him he will consider it “very promptly”, he says. He says MPs know that he will “do his duty”.
Plaid Cymru’s Hywel Williams asks what guidelines were given to officials in terms of deciding what should be left out.
Walker says they left out information that was commercially confidential, or that might have undermined the UK’s negotiating stance.
Labour’s Angela Eagle says this episode shows the problem with the government’s policy of not engaging with opposition motions.
Philip Hollobone, a Conservative Brexiter, says it was a “mistake” for the government not to amend the original motion. The government is now “skating on very thin parliamentary ice”, he says. He says the government should come back to the Commons next week with a new motion.
David Jones, the former Brexit minister, says our EU counterparts show now interest in what happens in the Commons, and do not read parliamentary documents.
Walker says sometimes EU counterparts do take an interest in parliament.
The Conservative MP Jeremy Lefroy says he hopes there is a “rethink” before David Davis appears before the Brexit committee. Lefroy is a member of the committee.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry says the Scottish government, which has seen the documents, says that they contain “nothing substantial at all about Scotland”.
Ministers will considering asking MPs to pass second motion on Brexit impact reports clarifying what can be published, Walker says
Richard Graham, a Conservative, says no MP will want the government to release information that might undermine the government’s position. He urges the government to put forward a motion amending the original humble address (the original motion saying the papers should be published - see 12.49am.)
Walker says the government will consider this.
- Ministers will considering asking MPs to pass second motion on Brexit impact reports clarifying what can be published, Walker says.
Walker says it is wrong to describe the documents handed to the select committee as “edited”.
Walker says the government is actually giving the committee more information than originally required by the Commons.
All MPs offered chance to read Brexit impact report information given to Brexit committee
In his opening statement Walker said that all MPs would get the chance to see the documents given to the select committee. He said:
I can also Mr Speaker, with your permission, inform the House that we have initiated discussions with the Parliamentary authorities to make this information available to all colleagues through a reading room.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Tory Brexiter, says the issue is not whether or not the information should be published. If the government objected, it should have voted down the motion. But the motion was passed, and it is binding. It is now up to the select committee. The government should either meet the terms of the motion “in full” or put down a new motion.
Walker says the government thinks it has complied with the motion.
The Tory Brexiter Peter Bone says he agrees with Ken Clarke and Hilary Benn. He urges the government to come back with another Commons motion.
The Lib Dem MP Tom Brake asks why the government has edited its report, when the Bank of England has published “chilling” information about what might happen after Brexit. Is it true the bulk of the information was not given to the committee?
No, says Walker.
Hilary Benn, the committee chair, says David Davis should appear before it “very speedily indeed”.
He says the committee has received edited documents. That is “not in keeping” with the resolution passed by the Commons.
He says he made it clear to Davis how he would handle the papers.
He says he objects to the suggestion from Davis that he cannot be trusted to do his job.
Walker says, when Benn has has the chance to read the information, he will find it useful.
The Commons Brexit committee has now published the letter it got from David Davis, and Hilary Benn’s reply, here on its website.
The pro-European Tory Ken Clarke says, if the government did not want to hand over the documents, it should have voted against the Commons motion. And if it wanted to amend the motion, it should have done so.
He asks if the government will let Hilary Benn, the chair of the committee, see the paperwork in its unedited form.
Walker says the motion that was passed referred to sectoral impact analyses that did not exist in the form assumed.
For the record, here is the motion passed by the Commons.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty’s Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.
Updated
Walker is responding to Starmer.
He says Starmer should not be dismissing the information without having read it.
The information disclosed was substantial, he says.
He says this does not represent “the sum” of the government’s analysis.
He says David Davis will accept the Brexit committee’s request to appear before it.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says the government does not understand the word transparency and accountability.
He says the Commons motion was clear; it said the information should be handed over to the select committee.
He says the government could have tried to amend the Commons motion that was passed, but did not.
He says Walker must explain what assurances the government asked for from the select committee that were not given.
The Commons will have a chance to debate at another time whether there has been a contempt of parliament.
He says in his experience scrutiny is essential for good decision making.
He says he is worried to hear that the information fills just two lever arch files. He says that, in his old job as DPP, that is the amount of paperwork you would expect for a standard crown court case.
Brexit requires much more analysis, he says.
Urgent question on Brexit impact reports
Robin Walker, a Brexit minister, is responding to the urgent question.
He argues that the government has complied with what the House of Commons wanted. He says the sectoral reports did not exist in the form the Commons assumed. And he says that, contrary to reports, the Brexit committee did not give the government an assurance that confidential information would not be released.
Bercow hints MPs may get chance to debate whether David Davis guilty of contempt of parliament
John Bercow, the Commons speaker, says he granted the urgent question to allow the minister to answer questions about the Brexit impact reports. He says it is not an opportunity for MPs to debate whether or not there has been a contempt of parliament.
He says there may or may not be a chance for MPs to debate that in the future.
- Bercow hints MPs may get chance to debate whether David Davis guilty of contempt of parliament.
Updated
It will be Robin Walker responding to the UQ.
Just been confirmed that Robin Walker and NOT @DavidDavisMP will respond to the #BrexitReports UQ at 1230. Where is he? Worried that anything he said would be used in evidence against him? #ContemptOfParliament
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 28, 2017
Benn says Davis has failed to comply with resolution passed by Commons on Brexit impact reports
Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, has said that David Davis’s decision not to release the Brexit impact reports to the committee in full was “not in keeping with the resolution that was passed by the House of Commons”.
The Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, another member of the Commons Brexit committee, said the government “stop treating the committee and British public like children and then get on with what parliament mandated”. He told the Guardian:
There was a unanimously agreed motion of the House that the government had to make these reports available to the committee in their entirety. The failure to do so looks like a breach of parliamentary privilege and potentially places the government in contempt of parliament.
Kinnock said the committee had given ministers many assurances that it would treat the information sensitively and agree jointly what would be published. “The claim in the David Davis letter that we didn’t give assurances is therefore deeply misleading and disappointing.”
Kinnock said he agreed with arguments Jacob Rees Mogg made in the Guardian, adding:
It is clear this is not a party political issue - there was at least one very pro-Brexit Conservative MP in the committee who made it absolutely clear that the government was potentially guilty of a breach of privilege.
The BBC’s Norman Smith says he thinks David Davis will be asked to appear before the Commons Brexit committee on Monday.
"The committee have decided to summon David Davis to appear before them, I suspect on Monday" says @BBCNormanS on #Brexit documents pic.twitter.com/CkmT3TZUbP
— BBC Daily Politics and Sunday Politics (@daily_politics) November 28, 2017
It sounds as if David Davis will not be responding to the urgent question about the Brexit impact reports himself. (See 10.56am.) He has been in cabinet this morning, and the meeting has gone on much longer than expected. Robin Walker, a junior Brexit minister, is expected to take his place.
Speaking after the Brexit select committee’s private meeting wrapped up this morning, a Labour member, Pat McFadden, said there were two issues at stake.
There is the question of parliamentary process and privilege and whether or not the government has complied with the resolution passed by the House of Commons. Parliament will now want to consider those.
He also pointed to the government’s argument that it could trust the committee members to withhold information that could hamper negotiations. “Everyone knows the importance of national interest in not divulging anything that would be against it,” he added.
But this is the biggest decision we have taken since the war, I believe the public has a right to know what the consequences are of the different options facing us. And if the government has that information I don’t think they should withhold it.
Brexit committee summons David Davis 'as a matter of urgency' to discuss Brexit impact reports
The House of Commons Brexit committee has just released a press statement following its private meeting this morning at which members discussed how to respond to the government’s decision to give it edited versions of the Brexit impact statements, not the full paperwork. In a statement to journalists the committee said:
Following a private meeting of the committee this morning, the committee has agreed the following actions:
Arrangements will be put in place for committee members to view the documents in private.
The committee agreed to publish the letter from the secretary of state [David Davis] in full. This will be published on the committee’s webpages.
The chair of the committee [Hilary Benn] will be writing to the secretary of state in response – the letter will be published on the committee’s webpages.
The committee is asking the secretary of state to attend an evidence session as a matter of urgency in order to confirm the process behind the department’s actions. The committee will then move into private session to discuss the matter further.
The committee said it received the edited information in paper, not electronic, form, copy, in a folder of approximately 850 pages. The Brexit department gave the same information to the Lords committee and to the devolved administrations.
The committee said it would treat the information like other evidence it receives, meaning it will decide whether to publish, when, and in what form.
The Brexit department is not saying yet which minister will be replying to Sir Keir Starmer’s UQ on the Brexit impact reports. (See 10.56am.)
But the Brexit minister Steve Baker has already started responding on Twitter.
The Government has satisfied the motion — providing the House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee with information covering 58 sectors of the economy. We have also shared the information with the Lords EU Committee. (1/3)
— Steve Baker MP (@SteveBakerHW) November 28, 2017
We have always been clear that our analysis does not exist in the form Parliament requested. We have taken time to bring together the analysis we do have in a way that meets Parliament’s specific ask. (2/3)
— Steve Baker MP (@SteveBakerHW) November 28, 2017
Our overall programme of work is comprehensive, thorough and is continuously updated. This sectoral analysis is simply one part of it. (3/3)
— Steve Baker MP (@SteveBakerHW) November 28, 2017
The social mobility commission’s state of the nation report is being published this morning. My colleague Anushka Asthana has previewed the main findings here.
Alan Milburn, the commission chair, has written about its conclusions for the Guardian here.
And here are two of the key charts from the report.
This map shows how local authority areas perform on an index for social mobility indicators.
Here is a chart listing the best and worst performing local authority areas.
And here is an excerpt from the report explaining how the index works.
The index measures social mobility prospects in each area through 16 key performance indicators. These allow us to assess which parts of the country have the best social mobility outcomes (the hotspots) and which have the worst (the coldspots). These indicators span each major life stage, from early years through to people’s working lives. The indicators show what happens in the early years, where significant gaps open up between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their more fortunate peers. We then track how this is translated into differences in educational attainment in the school years and then into different outcomes as young people prepare for the labour market. Finally, we look at the very different opportunities people have in their working lives in terms of the availability of top jobs, the prevalence of low pay and the likelihood of getting a foot on the housing ladder.
The full 178-page report is here (pdf).
Speaker grants Commons urgent question on Brexit impact reports
John Bercow, the speaker, has granted an urgent Commons question on the Brexit impact papers. It has been tabled by Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary.
UQ granted to @Keir_Starmer at 12.30 to ask @DavidDavisMP to make a statement on the release of the impact assessments arising from sectoral analyses carried out by Her Majesty’s Ministers to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union. #BoxOffice #ContemptOfParliament
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 28, 2017
The Labour MP David Lammy has posted a good thread on Twitter about the Brexit impact assessments. It starts here.
Thread: at 09:30 @CommonsEUexit meeting to discuss redacted and edited Brexit economic impact assessments. Is Govnt in contempt of Parliament? Did the Govnt mislead Parliament and the public? Did the reports ever exist in the first place? Let's look at the evidence (1)
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) November 28, 2017
And he summarises it all here.
In summary:
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) November 28, 2017
Me: "Have you done any Brexit impact assessments?"@DExEUgov: "Yes, loads, in excruciating detail. We're on top of it"
Me: "Ok, can you publish it so we can see it?"@DExEUgov: "No, it's secret"
Parliament: "Publish the studies"@DExEUgov: "They never existed, sorry" https://t.co/qfgVirSA7P
Britain should brace for higher unemployment as economic growth weakens due to Brexit uncertainty, falling consumer confidence and a collapse in investment, an influential think tank has warned. According to the Press Association, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said as part of its latest economic outlook that UK growth is set to fall further over the next two years to 1.2% and 1.1%, after easing to 1.5% for 2017. The PA story goes on:
“Economic activity is set to grow at just above 1% in 2018-19, with the negative impact of uncertainty about the final outcome of Brexit negotiations being partly countered by an assumed agreement on a transition period after March 2019,” said the OECD.
“However, this pace of growth will not be sufficient to prevent a moderate rise in the unemployment rate.”
It added that “job creation is losing momentum”.
Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) earlier this month showed that the number of people in work has fallen by 14,000, the biggest reduction in two years.
Employment was just over 32m in the quarter to September after the largest three-monthly fall since April-June 2015.
Other figures showed that the number of people classed as economically inactive increased by 117,000 to 8.8m, the biggest rise in more than seven years.
The OECD’s GDP growth forecasts undershoot those issued by the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility, which currently expects GDP growth of 1.4% in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019, giving a gloomier outlook for the British economy.
Here are three blogs on the Brexit impact assessment papers that are worth reading.
So by June 2017, we had already been told:
– the number of analyses (57 or 58)
– the analyses are in a “manageable format”
– the supposed overall significance of the analyses (85% of the economy)
– the analyses covered economic issues and “trade dynamics”
– the analyses were “extensive” and “thorough”
– the analyses were at both national and regional level
– the analyses dealt with the impact of Brexit on sectors
– the analyses were to be complete before notification and before Brexit policy-making
– the government was already minded not to publish any of the analyses, using the excuse that disclosure would undermine the government’s position
However I’m told David Davis first mentioned he had these 58 impact assessment reports when he was under pressure for not doing his homework. Remember that photo of him turning up for Brexit talks with nothing more than smile on his face ? Well it seems in an effort to show how thorough he was really being, he volunteered the information that he had in fact commissioned these reports into 58 separate areas of the economy.
Sounded impressive at the time.
But now the real political embarrassment may not be what they say (no suprise surely if they show large sections of British industry want to stay in the single market). The real embarrassment may be on how little work has actually been done on the likely impact of Brexit on the UK economy.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, told the Today programme this morning that Labour would raise with the speaker whether or not ministers were in contempt of parliament because they failed to hand over the unredacted Brexit impact reports to the Brexit select committee. He said:
The government is under an obligation to pass this information to the Brexit committee. If it is failing in that obligation, as it appears to be, we intend to raise it with the speaker … It follows from that that the government could be in contempt of parliament. They are certainly treating parliament with contempt and we intend to press the speaker on the issue and raise the issue of whether they are now in contempt. Having agreed to this procedure, they are now breaching it at the 11th hour.
You can read the full story here.
But Craig Mackinlay, a pro-Brexit Conservative member of the Brexit committee, defended the government’s decision to hand over the Brexit reports, showing how Brexit will impact 58 sectors of the economy, in redacted form. He said that if the information was passed to the committee in an unedited form, it could be leaked in a way that would damage the Brexit negotiations. He told the Today programme:
This committee is divided and there are many who want to use this information against the national interest.
It is really rather perverse now, as some Labour members are saying, that opening up our hand to the world is in the national interest when it patently must be the reverse is true.
Priti Patel condemns May's Brexit strategy and says EU should be told to 'sod off' over money
Until she delivered her Florence speech in September, Tory Brexiters were almost united in their support for Theresa May. After the speech some of them started to express reservations about her Brexit strategy, but generally she still has the firm backing of the hardline Conservative leavers. But by the week they are getting more restive and last night the fractures got a bit more visible when Priti Patel, the former international development secretary, criticised May’s approach to Brexit in her first proper speech since she was forced to resign from cabinet earlier this month.
Patel, a leading figure in the Vote Leave campaign, made three substantial points at an event in London hosted by The Spectator magazine.
- She said the government had failed to set out a vision for what Britain would be like after Brexit. She said:
We should have had conviction and clarity in terms of our end state and destination and presented that and been pretty forthright about it as well ...
One of the failings is we have not set out that vision, what is that vision of Britain going to look like post-Brexit? What are the economic opportunities for the City of London and for many other businesses and sectors in terms of leading out in the world and potentially trading with countries we have simply not been engaged with for not just years but for decades. And also reflecting that the world is changing, the labour market is changing.
- She said the government had been “ill-equipped” for Brexit negotiations.
The government has been ill-equipped in terms of preparations for the negotiations. It’s not an ideal state at all.
- She said May should be willing to tell the EU to “sod off” over its demands for money.
My views on money are pretty clear, I don’t like spending money so I would have told the EU in particular to sod off with their excessive financial demands.
Patel does not have a huge following amongst Conservative MPs and so her comments on their own will not necessarily worry Number 10 too much. But by speaking out in this way she may encourage other anti-Europeans, who don’t want to be outflanked on the hardline Brexit front, to start denouncing May too. (It is worth noting, for example, that the DUP is also urging May to “hold the line” in terms of paying extra money to Brussels.)
As usual, we’re expecting more Brexit in the Commons today, with the focus in particular on how the Brexit select committee will respond to the government’s decision not to give it the full, unredacted Brexit impact reports it was expecting.
Here is the agenda for the day.
8am: Theresa May hosts a meeting in Downing Street of the overseas territories joint ministerial council. They are discussing the hurricane relief effort.
9.30am: May chairs cabinet.
9.30am: The Commons Brexit committee meets in private to discuss its response to the government’s decision to hand over only redacted copies of its confidential Brexit impact assessments, not unredacted copies as MPs were expecting.
10am: Simon Henderson, headmaster of Eton College, and other education experts give evidence to the Commons education committee about the integrity of exams.
10.30am: Alan Miliburn, chair of the social mobility commission, publishes its state of the nation report. As Anushka Asthana reports, it says children from deprived backgrounds face the worst prospects in some of the richest parts of the country.
10.30am: Sinn Fein publish legal advice making the case for Northern Ireland to be granted special status in the EU.
11.30am: Philip Hammond, the chancellor, takes questions in the Commons.
12.30pm: Points of order in the Commons. MPs are expected to complain to the speaker that the government is not complying with the Commons vote ordering it to release the Brexit impact reports.
2pm: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, gives a speech at the Country Land and Business Association annual conference.
2.45pm: Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office minister, gives evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee about Britain’s diplomatic relationship with Europe.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard’s Playbook. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
